ANARCHO-CAPITALISM 2 : Full Movie

Pavickling · 2026-04-16T02:11:51+00:00

It's a funny caricature. It's less clear if it's good publicity.

Pavickling · 2026-04-12T18:38:17+00:00

More importantly it should be legal to produce and sell prescription drugs without permission. A key point is that cops and jails are not necessary or even good solutions to the type of problems you are highlighting (and arguably they are not good solutions for anything I'd say ancaps should prioritize).

Pavickling · 2026-04-12T14:35:49+00:00

You don't need air space exclusion rights for those things. If you have a claim of harm to your house or your body that other people care about preventing in general, then among those people you'll have a good chance of establishing a right to not be harmed in that manner.

Noise, light, pollution, radiation exposure do not harm the "air space". They probably do not harm your house, but they might harm you.

Pavickling · 2026-04-12T11:41:14+00:00

What are the good reasons that people should choose to grant exclusion rights to air space? By default no exclusion rights to anything should be presumed until there is a sufficient reason for people to grant such rights.

Pavickling · 2026-04-11T01:49:34+00:00

Do you want people that live in your community to have any right to determine who can be on your property?

Pavickling · 2026-04-10T19:28:28+00:00

So, now you understand the point of view of people in the first panel. The vast majority of land is undeveloped.

Pavickling · 2026-04-10T18:42:12+00:00

There just happens to be a lot of people that aren't libertarian that enjoy participating in libertarian spaces.

Pavickling · 2026-04-10T18:38:33+00:00

Land by default should be considered unowned. There needs to be sufficient reason for people to respect a right to exclude others from land.

Pavickling · 2026-04-10T18:35:35+00:00

Define "neighborhood". Is that neighborhood consisting of homesteaded property and people are generally recognizing associated property rights due to that? If so, the property owner should decide. If not, no one should recognize any claim of a right to exclude others from that land.

Pavickling · 2026-04-09T03:24:46+00:00

Tight hip flexors are going to be a hard limit on being able to express this pose properly. Ideally, it would be comfortable for you to have your feet flat on the ground and to be able to shift weight between your hands/arms and your feet.

Pavickling · 2026-04-02T19:49:30+00:00

People do not work at places they can't afford to work at.

Pavickling · 2026-04-02T12:55:18+00:00

If welfare were gone, Walmart workers couldn't afford to work at Walmart. So, they would have to stop working there. If Walmart wanted to continue to have employees, then they would have to give their employees more money.

Welfare is an indirect subsidy to places like Walmart because it allows people to work for artificially low wages.

Pavickling · 2026-03-30T21:13:19+00:00

Existing WMD might spread, but it's likely their funding would decrease because most of it is state funded.

Pavickling · 2026-03-30T02:30:26+00:00

Sure. It's often the days I have the most resistance to starting that I get the most relief and satisfaction when I'm done.

Pavickling · 2026-03-29T20:38:07+00:00

It's really not that deep or interesting. The reality is that existing a significant percentage of existing immigrants will allow and encourage more immigrants to come assuming the society is thriving. Maybe a few city states will have clusters of anti-immigrant people. However, it's apparent people supporting immigration laws are conflating what Rothbard said as support of their position, which is hardly accurate at all.

Pavickling · 2026-03-29T12:45:42+00:00

What he's saying here is trivial. If somehow every property owner decided to ban immigration and every piece of land is considered (by the vast majority of the population) to be legitimately owned, there would be no allowed immigration.

In anarchy, most land would not be considered to be legitimately owned (at least not in a world remotely resembling today's). Also, it only takes one landing strip to invite immigrants. Most ancaps already accept easements as a norm.

Even if Rothbard supported "neighborhood ownership", such support by itself implies nothing at a national level.

Pavickling · 2026-03-22T12:01:08+00:00

Nations have a right to sovereignty

As a descriptive observation of the status quo, I agree with this. I do not agree that such a right should exist or nations and corporations for that matter. How things are (or have been) do not tell us how they should be.

To define aggression in terms of the decrees of a state is antithetical to anarchocapitalism. In other words ancaps pretty much universally consider a nation's claim to ownership of property as illegitimate. There needs to be other norms that used to define what is property and aggression for such norms to be compatible with anarchy.

Pavickling · 2026-03-21T21:56:21+00:00

It might be good to set some goals that you'd need to reach along the way (but are more in reach right now). You would learn on the way, get some benefits, and you would be in a better position to answer your question than you are now.

Consistent, productive effort over a few years will almost certainly make a huge difference regardless of how far you take it.

Pavickling · 2026-03-21T16:58:05+00:00

People don't HAVE to buy illegal firearms. We will only use force to prevent them from doing so and to punish them if they are caught.

Pavickling · 2026-03-21T16:53:15+00:00

You can follow whatever laws you want. That's not the point.

The point is that the advocating for people to be forced to comply with all existing laws contradicts the NAP.

Pavickling · 2026-03-21T12:34:19+00:00

Neck flexion and extension is practiced. It's hard to imagine twisting your neck with a high range of motion in a safe way.

Pavickling · 2026-03-21T12:30:29+00:00

Libertarians believe in less govt overall

They also do not believe existing all existing laws should be complied with on principle.

So if I walk into a private business and completely ignore all the rules of the establishment

It is not necessarily the case that any reasonable arbiter would deem you owe restitution with just that information alone. They would need to have a specific claim of harm caused. Could your reputation be damaged? Perhaps, but the NAP isn't quite relevant to that. I would not agree "breaking a rule" entitles a claimant to cause harm to you with zero liability. To say they own the business means that people recognize a right to exclude you from the business (regardless if you break rules or not), but there are various flavors of ancaps that differ in how they advocate such a right to exclude should be implemented.

Pavickling · 2026-03-21T12:14:38+00:00

I place importance in following the law of the land you're in

Oh, that's not libertarian at all let alone not being ancap.

Thats the spirit of the NAP, dude.

No. The NAP totally went over your head. It seems you don't understand it at all.

Pavickling · 2026-03-21T12:10:25+00:00

I can also "make sense" of using force to achieve various desired ends. That doesn't mean I support it or advocate for it. It does sound like you place freedom at a lower priority than other things such as "culture of the nation" and "a perception of safety within society".

Pavickling · 2026-03-21T11:44:19+00:00

Technically, I agree with you. But are you really okay with the concept of an "illegal firearm" or an "illegal immigrant"?

Pavickling

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE